I guess I should clarify that in my sharpness examples with the 7D, I was not trying to say that the 7D is a better camera than the 5D III or 1D X. I just wanted to make it clear that the 7D sensor is most definitely not a bad sensor. It gets a lot of bad rap, but in my experience more of the "issues" with the 7D have to do with the lens, more so than with the sensor. The considerable complaints about 7D softness, and as a byproduct of the softness its noise, in my opinion, are really more complaints about the 7D revealing flaws with ones gear.

My ultimate point was that if you use high quality glass designed to resolve enough detail for high resolution sensors (i.e. any EF Mark II generation L-series lens), you'll utilize the 7D to its fullest. It is not a great high ISO performer, but at all the ISO settings it does perform well at, the overall IQ should be no different in real terms than what you may get out of any better camera. You will, however, find that the 7D's limitations are greater than that of newer Canon cameras. It falters at higher ISO settings where the 5D III and 1D X shine. It's AF system lacks the consistency and accuracy of the new 61pt AF system.

Maximize sharpness with high quality glass, and noise will quickly become a background issue with the 7D. Use inferior glass, and the limitations of both the glass and the 7D will even more quickly become readily apparent.

+1 to that! Totally agree. I use the 10-22 EF-S for landscapes and at magnifications close to 100% the 7D reveals that lens' limitations- loss of resolution away from centre frame, fine detail becoming more smeared and 'muddy' towards the edges. Not to say it is a bad lens, I love it for what it can do. To a lesser degree my 17-40 L used on the 7D has it's limitations revealed by the camera in a similar way. Of course really good wide angle lenses are harder to design than telephoto lenses. Using the 70-200 f4L IS or the 60 EF-S macro on the 7D shows what the sensor can really do- get it right and it rewards me with fantastic detail, and corner to corner as well.

Thing is, most of my photography is landscape. I don't have the money to go full frame at the moment, and I have often wondered how much better my landscape pictures would look with a FF body and decent lens. I suppose resolving fine- and often small - details in landscape scenarios is one of the toughest tests for a lens and sensor. Of course, it's true to say if I can't make the shot look good on the 7D, A FF body is not going to magically make my pictures look wonderful.

I'm pretty excited for the 70D. I'm hoping that it will stay around the $1200 price range, and have vastly improved ISO performance. However, if Canon throws in wifi and GPS, it would probably drive the price up, making it out of many people's price range. As for the 7D Mark II, it'lll be interesting to see what exactly they add.

Now that I have that out of my system, I'm hoping you guys can point out the error in my thinking here:Given the "focal-length-limited" scenario above, and assuming good light (I know, that usually (or should I say almost always) isn't the case but speaking theoretically here), you want a 16 x 20 print and you crop the FF to the 1.6 dimensions to get equal subject sizes on the final print. I think that gives you 216 pixels per inch for the 18 MP APS-C vs. 150 for the 22 MP FF crop. Doesn't that give the APS "reach" some advantage?

For a 16x20" print, probably no discernible difference. For a 30x4-" print, yes, the higher resolution of the uncropped APS-C image would be a benefit (again, assuming you're shooting at low ISO and with a fast enough shutter so noise and subject motion don't compromise your image).

Would you all be so enthusiastisc about FF bodies if that new 7D ends up have 22MP, with comparable stats of course?

Probably yes. Going back to jrista's accurate statement, "I would say the lens is the most important IQ factor. The AF system and frame rate are second. The image sensor is third," you could use the same lens on the 7DII, but it would depend on the 7DII's AF system, frame rate, and high ISO performance. A 7DII with a 1D X/5DIII-like AF system (say, 40-ish points with 20+ crosses), 10 fps, and a new sensor fab yielding a stop or more of real (i.e. RAW, not JPG-engine based) lower noise...that I would be enthusiastic about.

I'm pretty sure we'll see a 7DII. But 'overtakes the 5DIII' is a pretty big IF. Technological improvements in sensor manufacturing are wonderful, but overtaking the 2.6-fold larger light-gathering area of a FF sensor is a tall order for APS-C. Can it be done? Yes...but the relevant question is can Canon do it?

But if it comes even close (e.g., within one stop of the current FF on ISO noise, which is better than the 1.3-stop difference purely based on sensor area), that will make for a difficult choice, especially if Canon also opts to give the 7DII a much-improved AF system (accuracy/consistency of the 1D X/5DIII, >20 cross-type points) and 10 fps...

Neuro, by "overtakes" I mean the extra 1.5xcrop reach combined with improved IQ iso and focussing turn into a real advantage for bird photography. Of course, if you are not limited by trying to photo tiny birds at long distances but are using the whole frame, then the FF wins every time.

My major reason for buying the 5D III was that I got fed up with having to take several shots with the 7D to make sure that one was in perfect focus for the extreme conditions I operate under, especially when using RAW. It wasn't really the sensor issue. But, now I have the FF, I am delighted with it.

Of course, it's true to say if I can't make the shot look good on the 7D, A FF body is not going to magically make my pictures look wonderful.

In spite of the unresolved personal issues some folks seem to have , it's been a very informative topic. Jrista's and Neuro's comments are always great and pertinent; plenty to learn from them. Thank you! I've been struggling to decide whether to go FF or not, and although I can afford it, maybe I should not. There are photos taken 50 yrs ago with very limited equipment that I still can't take with my 60D, TTL, AF and so on. I couldn't agree more with WildBill and insanitybeard; going FF will not improve my photos. The thing is, I seem to get carried away much too easily by new technology and by forum threads, as if hoping that someone else will make me a better photographer. I could own a 1DX and would still be the same lazy-ass photographer I am, taking the same crappy pics. It's like buying some AB toner and vibrating platform crap and hoping to get thin with only 7 mins a day, so I can spend the rest of the afternoon on the couch finishing that package of Chunks Ahoy I opened in the morning. (Hmm, guess I just got hungry...)I agree with jrista's comments on Topaz DeNoise. All of a sudden, my 60D is great at ISO 1600 and very good for my kid's pics at 3200. Don't need more. I'll upgrade my 60D to a 7D (mark 1!) so I can have AFMA for a little over $1,000, better AF and still have built-in flash for using as a commander with my only 430EXII. My 17-55 f/2.8 is on its way already.(Funny to think that only a few months ago people were hoping for Canon to put the 7D's AF system on the 6D, and now it's just not good enough.)I want more, but I don't need more; more clearly put: I don't deserve more just yet. (Plus, my wife won't let me... )Cheers!Daniel

if you use high quality glass designed to resolve enough detail for high resolution sensors (i.e. any EF Mark II generation L-series lens), you'll utilize the 7D to its fullest

Don't mean to go further off topic, but I was wondering how one identifies said glas? Could you dish out some rough MTF estimates to go by? The best glas I have atm is the 50mm 1.4 and I was thinking of getting the Tamron 24-70 VC.

As far as MTF's go, effectively "perfect"...all factors measured at nearly 1.0 (>0.97) almost right through the corners. Corner performance should only drop off a few points, around 0.7 or greater. Just look at the MTF's of any of Canon's new Mark II Telephoto and Supertelephoto primes. Every single one has a near-perfect MTF, even wide open.

I guess I should clarify that in my sharpness examples with the 7D, I was not trying to say that the 7D is a better camera than the 5D III or 1D X. I just wanted to make it clear that the 7D sensor is most definitely not a bad sensor. It gets a lot of bad rap, but in my experience more of the "issues" with the 7D have to do with the lens, more so than with the sensor. The considerable complaints about 7D softness, and as a byproduct of the softness its noise, in my opinion, are really more complaints about the 7D revealing flaws with ones gear.

My ultimate point was that if you use high quality glass designed to resolve enough detail for high resolution sensors (i.e. any EF Mark II generation L-series lens), you'll utilize the 7D to its fullest. It is not a great high ISO performer, but at all the ISO settings it does perform well at, the overall IQ should be no different in real terms than what you may get out of any better camera. You will, however, find that the 7D's limitations are greater than that of newer Canon cameras. It falters at higher ISO settings where the 5D III and 1D X shine. It's AF system lacks the consistency and accuracy of the new 61pt AF system.

Maximize sharpness with high quality glass, and noise will quickly become a background issue with the 7D. Use inferior glass, and the limitations of both the glass and the 7D will even more quickly become readily apparent.

define what you mean by a good or less good sensor? signal / noise and DR.

You have some kind of innate need to prove that Canon sensors "suck", Mikael. Because of that, you always miss the point. Before you dive off into some inane discussion about how a few points difference in DR or SNR at high ISO actually matters, you really need to read every post of this entire thread. Maybe read it a few times, and really get all the details into your brain. Relatively, speaking only about the sensor, Canon sensors are a few percent...yes, JUST A FEW PERCENT, worse than Sony sensors. However the real-world examples of IQ from the 7D clearly show it it is a highly capable CAMERA. So, read the entire thread, detail for detail, a few times...and SEE what we are SAYING:

Photography is about THE CAMERA...not the sensor. In that respect, the 7D is an extremely capable camera.

I guess I should clarify that in my sharpness examples with the 7D, I was not trying to say that the 7D is a better camera than the 5D III or 1D X. I just wanted to make it clear that the 7D sensor is most definitely not a bad sensor. It gets a lot of bad rap, but in my experience more of the "issues" with the 7D have to do with the lens, more so than with the sensor. The considerable complaints about 7D softness, and as a byproduct of the softness its noise, in my opinion, are really more complaints about the 7D revealing flaws with ones gear.

My ultimate point was that if you use high quality glass designed to resolve enough detail for high resolution sensors (i.e. any EF Mark II generation L-series lens), you'll utilize the 7D to its fullest. It is not a great high ISO performer, but at all the ISO settings it does perform well at, the overall IQ should be no different in real terms than what you may get out of any better camera. You will, however, find that the 7D's limitations are greater than that of newer Canon cameras. It falters at higher ISO settings where the 5D III and 1D X shine. It's AF system lacks the consistency and accuracy of the new 61pt AF system.

Maximize sharpness with high quality glass, and noise will quickly become a background issue with the 7D. Use inferior glass, and the limitations of both the glass and the 7D will even more quickly become readily apparent.

define what you mean by a good or less good sensor? signal / noise and DR.

Why does everything have to be defined/quantified and brought back to the Canon vs Nikon D800/D7000 etc etc argument? jrista said it is 'not a bad sensor'. He did not compare nor try to compare it to anything else in the quoted post. Here we go again. What I believe he was trying to say was that the 7D is capable to deliver very good results when used correctly. Maybe not as good as some other cameras in certain areas but there is more to it than that. So if you care to quote me or ask me to provide evidence or figures or to substanciate my claims, know that I am not interested in justifying myself nor responding to you any further on this matter. I am just sick of this whole 'Nikon is better' thing, which you insist on bringing into (virtually) everything. Nikon may utilise 'better' sensors at the present time, regarding sensors ONLY, but there is more to a picture than your DR and signal noise graphs. When the D800 and D7000 sensors are old technology and have been surpassed and outclassed by newer technology, does that mean we can slate them for being rubbish?

I must be doing something wrong because I continue to take gorgeous pictures with my 7D. After reading this thread, and several others on this forum, I'm now convinced my camera is a piece of junk. I hope I can figure out what I'm doing wrong so my pictures will match my camera's abilities and I can move on to FF where all real photographers belong. I appreciate any help you guys can give me.

No one is saying that. Quite the opposite: in good light, the 7D is the equal of the 5D III in many circumstances at a fraction of the price. But, the 5D III is better at high iso and has more consistent and faster focus. I have taken great photos and will continue so to do with my 7D. But, the 5D III loses very little if anything by having 1.6 times less reach.

I think he was being sarcastic. That said, you get a few feet from your subject, and even the "lowly" 100-400mm L lens on the 7D will do you justice:

A Killdeer in late fall/early winter, taken with the 7D, 100-400mm @ 400mm, 1/1000s, f/7.1, ISO 200. The 7D can certainly take great photos, even with "crappy" glass like the 100-400 L (although I will say, I really kind of hate the boke from the 100-400...really NOT of any great quality). For those who miss WildBill's sarcasm...keep in mind, we've been comparing the 7D to the likes of the 5D III and 1D X. Arguably two of the best DSLRs the world has ever seen...

Here are the reasons why I have spent a fortune on bodies and lenses. I first started bird photography for the sheer fun of taking photos and identifying the birds, using the 7D and the 100-400mm L. I should have stopped there but a really good Dutch photographer uploaded one of my best photos to a Dutch website www.birdpix.nl. Then, I got hooked on getting more good photos uploaded. It proved to be difficult because they have a team of moderators who reject for the slightest of reasons: too noisy; not sharp enough; oversharpened etc etc. My initial rate of acceptance was about 50% of those shots that were in focus (the 7D is a bit erratic). Here is a photo of a Killdeer I took last year in New Hampshire - it is not much worse than yours but it was rejected as not being sharp enough. In order to get acceptable photos I had to get reasonably close. So, I upgraded the 100-400 to a 300mm f/2.8 II plus extenders (ouch). This doubled or maybe tripled the distance away I needed to get to take sharp photos because of the additional focal length (600 mm) and lens sharpness. Still, I was having too many photos rejected because they were too noisy or if I lowered the noise they became too soft. So, I bit the bullet and bought the 5D III for its lower noise and better focus. Now, this has increased again the number of photos I can sneak past those picky moderators. The unexpected bonus of the 5D III that the loss of crop has not significantly altered the range of distance it covers.

The "rejected" Killdeer photo, also taken with Canon 7D and 100-400mm L.

Hi Alan. I understand the feel of rejection, I've had that occur all too frequently as well. That said, there are some things I've learned recently about my bird photography that have opened my eyes to the difference between a truly artistic bird photograph, executed not only with technical prowess but also style. The photo of your killdeer is not bad in any technical sense. It is a well executed shot.

If I was critiquing that shot for a well-known magazine, online or paper, I would look beyond just the technical execution, though. For what it is, it is brightly lit, clearly focused for the subject size and distance, and well exposed. Artistically, however, it makes a few of the same mistakes I was making for the bulk of 2012. Here are a few tips:

Aim for engaging photos.

An engaging photo is one in which the viewer is drawn to and able to virtually engage with the key subject or subjects.

Extraneous elements beyond the subject tend to just be distractions, so follow the rule of subtraction whenever possible.

Eye contact with the subject is engaging.

Interaction between multiple subjects is engaging.

Watch the perspective.

Very low, almost ground-level angles are best for shorebirds. That minimizes DOF just around the bird, and really blurs out the background to nicely isolate the subject.

Watch the pose.

You want the bird's body to be either broadside to the camera, or pointed at a slight angle toward it.

Other angles tend to be less engaging...possibly even off-putting.

Watch the head angle.

You want the bird to be looking strait at the camera in the best case.

Birds looking out, up, or elsewhere are less engaging, except when another subject is involved.

When two or more subjects are involved in some activity, say a parent sharing with its offspring, head angle should fit the activity, and need not be directly engaging with the viewer.

Watch the lighting.

Direct, flat lighting tends to eliminate the visibility of detail, even if the detail is resolved by the lens.

You want the sun behind you, not overhead, preferably to a slight angle to one side.

A sun phase angle of a few degrees, over the shoulder where the bird is pointing is usually preferable for ideal shading to bring out the most in resolved detail.

Fill the frame!

The amount, and sharpness, of detail really boils down to getting as many pixels on subject as possible.

When a pixel is a small fraction of the size of the smallest element of resolved detail, you've achieved the holy grail of IQ.

High density sensors definitely help to get more pixels on subject, but larger/lower density sensors with longer lenses or closer subject distances do just as well, if not better (i.e. 18mp APS-C vs. 22.3mp FF...the FF will ultimately be capable of packing on more pixels for the same subject size in frame).

You've done fairly well with #1 & very well with #4. The photo is fairly engaging, although the body angle is a little off-putting. The key issues are with the lighting (much too flat and harsh, almost as though it was flashed or came out of a snoot), and with the rest of the composition...perspective, subject size, environment, etc. The bird is a beauty, but the environment it is in is kind of boring, dull, and because there is a fair amount of only slightly blurred detail, a little distracting. The same bird in its element, wading along a shore somewhere with a creamy water backdrop and possibly a creamy soft sandy or muddy foreground, with the bird either broadsize or angled slightly towards the camera, would make for a much more artistically and aesthetically pleasing, less distracting, and engaging photo.

I should point out, I've received several critiques on the killdeer photo I posted here. It has its own problems. The head angle is not ideal...the bird is actually looking slightly up, not directly at my camera. The depth of field is a bit too deep, I probably should have been at f/5.6, maybe f/4, however I was using the 100-400mm lens, and an f/5.6 or f/6.3 aperture would have softened a lot of the detail. The perspective is not ideal...it could have been a bit lower, helping to blur more of the foreground and more of the background, softening the somewhat distracting highlight boke in the background.

Well...sorry for the OT! I guess we could copy this to another thread if necessary....

Would you all be so enthusiastisc about FF bodies if that new 7D ends up have 22MP, with comparable stats of course?

Probably yes. Going back to jrista's accurate statement, "I would say the lens is the most important IQ factor. The AF system and frame rate are second. The image sensor is third," you could use the same lens on the 7DII, but it would depend on the 7DII's AF system, frame rate, and high ISO performance. A 7DII with a 1D X/5DIII-like AF system (say, 40-ish points with 20+ crosses), 10 fps, and a new sensor fab yielding a stop or more of real (i.e. RAW, not JPG-engine based) lower noise...that I would be enthusiastic about.

Neuro's nailed it on the head. Sensor should really be the third-highest consideration, not the first...at least not in all cases. There are some obvious issues with the current 7D sensor, namely banding at low ISO in the shadow tones and high noise at ISO settings above 1600. Those should really be fixed. But, assuming they are not...if we get all the other features Nero mentioned like 10fps and a 40pt AF system with better AF drive firmware and a more powerful battery in the 7D II....I'd probably still buy one. The other features would overpower the negative of sensor noise for me, and it would certainly be a step up from the 7D I have now.

Great thread Was waiting for the 6D to drop in price or the 70D to be announced.As I probably just landed my first properly paid photo-job however, I am on the verge of caving and getting another 60D or a 7D and a 24-70VC. (probably a 7D since the price difference is small here - 750$ vs 1100$)Sure, I'd love to be on the frontline of new tech, but I am sure that the 18mp beater will serve me well until I can afford to go FF or 7Dmk2. This thread might just have been the last push I needed.Just wanted to express my appreciation for all the stuff I learn here - Neuro, Jrista and AlanF, I appreciate your eloquent explanations alot!

Thanks Jrista for those useful tips. I am used to rejections (from Nature, Science, Cell etc). But, I have learned a lot from the rejections and criticisms and have improved my technique significantly since last year. Here is a kingfisher taken with my 7D and a reed bunting on my first outing with the 5D III - I love both cameras - both are 100% crops), and higher resolution closer up of a goldfinch last week on the 5D III.

Thanks Jrista for those useful tips. I am used to rejections (from Nature, Science, Cell etc). But, I have learned a lot from the rejections and criticisms and have improved my technique significantly since last year. Here is a kingfisher taken with my 7D and a reed bunting on my first outing with the 5D III - I love both cameras - both are 100% crops), and higher resolution closer up of a goldfinch last week on the 5D III.

One other recommendation. Ease up on the NR a bit (or even a lot). If those are full frame crops, you are either decimating your detail via NR, or something is wrong with your lens. On both cameras, if you were able to get the birds that large in the frame, you should be getting as much detail as I did in my orange morph house finch shot (if not more).